SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-Surinder Singh was tried on the charge of rape punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. in the Court of Mrs. Nirmal Yadav, Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, and was convicted thereunder and sentenced to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to suffer further RI for two months.

(2.) ON 28.1.1986 at about 11.00 a.m. Krishni Devi, aged about 75 years had gone towards the Markanda river for collecting cow-dungs. When she was in the process of collecting the cow-dungs, appellant Surinder Singh happened to be present there with his two dogs. Surinder Singh pushed Krishni Devi on the ground after throwing her basket of the cow-dungs and he criminally assulted her by overpowering her by placing his hand on her mouth. Due to suddenness of the occurrence and the old age, the prosecutrix fell victim to the lust of the appellant. After having been ravished, she returned home to tell about this incident to her daughter, in-law Jaiyanti Devi, wife of Mam Raj. She did not go out of her house due to shame. Later on, the matter was reported to the police when her statement was recorded which was proved as Exhibits PE and based thereon is the formal FIR Exhibit PE/2, scribed by SI Sant Lal.

(3.) IN order to bring the guilt home to the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. Mrs. Santosh Kumari (PW 1) who had medically examined the prosecutrix; Ramesh Kumar (PW 2) who had medically examined the accused and found nothing to suggest that he was incapable of performing the sexual intercourse; prosecutrix Krishni Devi (PW 3), who corroborated the prosecution case; Jagat Ram, Lambardar (PW 4), before whom the prosecutrix had narrated her woeful story regarding her being criminally assaulted by the accused: Mam Raj (PW 5) son of the prosecutrix who led evidence to the effect that on his returning home, from duty, his mother informed about the said incident of rape to him. The panchayat was also convened where the accused was summoned and as per the evidence of the witnesses, the accused had admitted his guilt and ought to be excused. Mangu Ram Sarpanch appeared as PW 6 and corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix regarding the incident, on the basis of the information, which he had received from her. S.I. Ram Lubhaya examined himself as PW 7 and proved the investigation of the case. Jagmohan Lal Patwari appeared as PW 8, who had prepared the scaled site-plan Exhibit PJ of the place of occurrence.